Kolkata Court January 1904 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Shyamkishen Vs. Sundar Koer
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-20-1904
Reported in: (1904)ILR31Cal373
Banerjee and Brett, JJ.1. This is an appeal from an order of the Court below postponing the sale of the mortgaged properties and giving the judgment-debtor Rani Sundar Koer, time to have her property taken charge of by the Court, of Wards, so, that arrangements might be made for paying off the decree.2. At the hearing of the appeal a preliminary objection was taken on behalf of the respondent, the order of the Court below, as it was an order under Sections 291 of the Code, Civil Procedure, and not under Section 244. If it was an order under Section 291 simply adjourning the sale, no appeal lay from it, as an order under Section 291 is not made appealable by Section 588. But then the learned vakil for the appellants contends, and we think rightly, that the case comes under Section 244 and that the order of the Court below was an order in effect, if not in terms, for stay of execution of the decree. The order in terms is no doubt an order for stay of sale, but as the decree is a mortgage...
Empreor Vs. Bakaullah Mallik
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-19-1904
Reported in: (1904)ILR31Cal411
Ghose and Stephen, JJ.1. The appellants in the present case have been convicted on charges under Section 482 and Section 486 of the Indian Penal Code, as amended by the Indian Merchandise Marks Act, 1889, of using a false trade-mark, and selling goods marked with a counterfeit trade-mark, and under Section 6 of the Merchandise Marks Act of applying a false trade description to goods, and they are now appealing against These convictions. The main facts in the case are simple and are undisputed.2. Since December, 1900 the opposite party have been selling fish-hooks, which they have imported from Europe, in packets bearing labels on which appears a design of two fish crossed, with their heads and tails bent up. These fish-hooks have been generally known in Calcutta as 'mash marka' (fish mark) and have commanded a large sale. The boxes, labels and designs have been made exhibits, but we need only notice the design of two fishes which for present purposes may be conveniently referred to as ...
Jadab Chandra Bakshi Vs. Bhairab Chandra Chuckerbutty
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-13-1904
Reported in: (1904)ILR31Cal297
Harington and Brett, JJ.1. In this case a Rule was granted calling upon the opposite party to show cause why the order of the Small Cause Court Judge of Serampore complained of should not be set aside, or such other order made as to this Court might seem fit. The order was an order dismissing the plaintiff's suit on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The plaintiff sued on a bond for money borrowed by the defendant. The condition of the bond was that the money should be repaid in certain instalments, and the material proviso which has to be considered in this case, is 'and on failure to pay any one of the said instalments, you,', that is, the plaintiff: 'shall be at liberty to realize the amount covered by all the instalments immediately with interest at the above rate, until realization.' Then question that arises on this proviso is does the Statute of Limitation run from the date of the first instalment in respect of which default is made, or is the plaintiff at liberty to s...
Srimant Roy Vs. Mahadeo Mahata
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-12-1904
Reported in: (1904)ILR31Cal550
Harington and Brett, JJ.1. In this appeal, the landlord of Nadpore Satar is the appellant, and the respondent is the purchaser of a holding, which was sold in execution of a decree for arrears of rent obtained a suit brought by a ticcadar of a 12-anna share of the village after the expiration of his lease. The lease expired m 1895, and the suit was brought and the decree obtained against the tenant for arrears of rent for 1-301-2 (1894 95) on the 30th November, 1897. The tenure was sold in execution of the decree, and was purchased by the respondent on the 18th April 1901.2. On the expiry of the ticcadar's lease, the appellant, the landlord took khas possession, and on the 15th August 1899, he obtained a decree against the same tenant for arrears of rent for the years 13--1305 On the 17th April 1901, he put in an application the proceedings in execution taken on the decree obtained by the ticcadar string that he had obtained a decree for arrears of rent for later years and praying that...
Hayes Vs. Harendra Narain
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-11-1904
Reported in: (1904)ILR31Cal698
Hill and Stevens, JJ.1. This is an appeal by the defendants, who are the executors of one Dharam Chand Lal against the decree of the District Judge of Purneah, by which the decree of the Subordinate Judge was reversed and the suit of the plaintiff decreed.2. The suit was instituted on the 11th of July 1899 by the heirs of one Prohlad Singh, for the purpose of setting aside a putni lease granted to Dharam Chand Lal by a lady named Mussummut Sibbati, who held a proprietary interest in the lands in suit for a widow's estate and upon whose estate Prohlad Singh was the reversioner at law. The suit proceeded apparently as far as the filing of the written statement, on the 14th of August 1899, but from that time until the 26th of February 1900, nothing appears to have been done. On that date, however, the executor of Prohlad Singh, Prohlad Singh having died on the 11th of November 1898, leaving a will bearing date the 9th of November in the same year, was substituted for the original plaintif...
Amrita Lal Kalay Vs. Nibaran Chandra Nayek
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-08-1904
Reported in: (1904)ILR31Cal340
Henderson, J.1. This was a Rule granted under Section 622 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 38 of the Presidency Small Cause Court Act to show cause why an order dated the 24th July 1903, directing a new trial made in the suit should not be set aside. The ground upon which the Rule was granted was the want of jurisdiction.2. The circumstances under which the Rule was obtained are these: On the 2nd March 1903, the petitioner obtained a decree in the Small Cause Court for Rs. 177-3 including costs and on the 25th April in execution attached a tiled hut and certain moveable articles as belonging to the judgment-debtor. Thereupon the plaintiff in the present suit alleging that he was the owner of the hut and the moveable articles, paid that amount together with Rs. 2-8, said to have been incurred for peons' wages in connection with the attachment, into Court, to the credit of the original suit, and filed a suit in the Small Cause Court against the petitioner claiming the amount so...
Surjya Kanta Roy Chowdhry Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-08-1904
Reported in: (1904)ILR31Cal350
Harington and Brett, JJ.1. In this case Rule has been issued calling upon the Magistrate of the district of the 24-Perganas to show cause why the order complained of requiring the petitioners to give security for keeping the peace should not be set aside on the ground that the Sub-divisional Magistrate, who made the order, had no jurisdiction to made it, regard being had to the provisions of Sub-section 2 of Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and on the further ground that no overt acts have been proved against the petitioners such as would justify the order against them for binding them down to keep the peace, and as regards the petitioner Babu Surjya Kanta Roy Chowdhry on the further ground that the amount of the security is excessive.2. The facts of the case as appearing from the records are as follows: On the 17th April last the bazar at Taki, which belonged to Babu Jatindra Nath Chowdhry, and which. had been held on that site for 30 years and more, was destroyed by fir...
Sarada Prosad Ray Vs. Mahananda Ray
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-06-1904
Reported in: (1904)ILR31Cal448
Hill and Stevens, JJ.1. This was a suit by one of several brothers claiming by right of inheritance from his father one-sixth share in certain property, which, he asserted, had belonged to his father at the time of his death. The Munsif held that in respect of all the property in suit, save and except a parcel of land described as No. 31, the plaintiff has made good his case, and gave him a decree accordingly. With respect to the property No. 31, however, which, it was asserted by the defendant No. 2, had been purchased by him during the lifetime of the father, and of which he had since remained in exclusive possession, the Munsif found that the plaintiff had failed to establish his case that that property constituted any part of the estate of the, father, and so he dismissed the suit in respect of it The plaintiff then appealed to the learned Judge. With regard to property No. 31, with which I may say we are now alone concerned, the learned Judge reversing the finding of the Munsif he...
Gulab Khan Vs. Abdul Wahab Khan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-06-1904
Reported in: (1904)ILR31Cal365
Rampini and Pratt, JJ.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was one brought for accounts from an agent and for the sum which, on account being taken, might be found to be due by the agent. The plaintiff valued his suit at Rs. 5,000, but he prayed that, if a larger amount might be found due to him, he might be given a decree for the amount so found due on his paying the deficit Court-fee duty.2. The Subordinate Judge found the plaintiff entitled to a sum of Rs. 5,756-13-6.3. The defendant has now appealed. A preliminary objection has been taken to the hearing of this appeal on ground that, as the plaintiff valued his suit at Rs. 5,000, the appeal lies to the District Judge and not to this Court, as under Section 21 of Act XII of. 1887, it is 'the value of the original suit' that determines the forum of appeal. The cases of Mohini Mohan Das v. Satis Chandra Roy (1890) I.L.R. 17 Calc. 704, Rameswar Mahton v. Dilu Mahton (1894) I.L.R. 21 Calc. 550, Nilmony Singh v. Jagabandhu Roy (18...
Gholam MohiuddIn HosseIn Vs. Khairan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-06-1904
Reported in: (1904)ILR31Cal786
Hill and Stevens, JJ.1. The appellants before us were the plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 3 in the Court of first instance and are proprietors to the extent of eight annas odd gundas in a parcel of land comprising 141 bighas, which is in the possession of the persons, who have been referred to as the principal defendants in the suit. With the appellants certain other persons joined as plaintiffs, who represented a two annas interest in the same property, and the remaining interest is vested in the pro forma defendants. The suit was for what has been described as partial ejectment of the principal defendants, that is to say, the plaintiffs asked for khas possession to the extant of their share in the, land jointly with the principal defendants, and there was an alternative prayer that, if the Court should think fit, the principal defendan's might be declared liable to pay to the plaintiffs a fair and equitable rent to be determined by the Court.2. The plaintiff's case was that the tenant-defendant...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›